Delhi District Court
Smt.Manju Saxena vs Shri Hemant Sharma on 21 July, 2026
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN
COMPLIANCE WITH
"SUHAS CHAKMA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" W.P
(C)1082/20
COVERSHEET TO THE COPY OF JUDGMENT
The convict has been informed that the convict may avail free
legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies. The
following Authority may be contacted for seeking appropriate
guidance:
District Legal Services Authority, North-East District
Address of the Authority: Room No. 35, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Phone Number: 9667992794, 011-22101335
Digitally signed
by SANJANA
KASANA
E-mail: northeast-dlsa@nicin SANJANA Date:
KASANA 2026.07.21
16:35:43
+0530
(Signature of Presiding
Officer)
Date:-21.07.2026
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 1 (Sanjana Kasana)
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
DLNE020003962022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANJANA KASANA,
JMFC, N.I. ACT, NE, KKD, NEW DELHI
CC No. : 201/2022
U/s : 138 N. I. Act
PS : Bhajan pura
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma
JUDGMENT
1. CCNo. : 201/2022 2. Date of institution of the case : 25.01.2022 3. Name of complainant : Manju Saxena w/o Sh. Ram Prakash Saxena R/o H.No.D-250A, Galino.7, Bhajanpura Delhi-110053 4. Name of accused, parentage and address : Hemant Sharma s/o Sh.Chander Shekhar R/o K-27/A3, Street No.27, West Ghonda, Dellhi-110053 5. Offence complained of : 138 N. I. Act 6. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty 7. Final order : Conviction 8. Date on which order was : 16.07.2026 reserved 9. Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2026 SANJANA KASANA Digitally signed by SANJANA KASANA Date: 2026.07.21 CC NO. 201/2022 Page 2 (Sanjana Kasana) 16:35:56 +0530 Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose off the
present complaint case instituted by the Complainant invoking
the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881(as in after referred to as NI Act).
2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint case, as
per the complainant, may be summarized as hereafter: That the
complainant and the accused were having friendly relations since
long. That the accused had taken friendly loan of Rs.8,60,000/-
from the complainant on different dates i.e. on 23.09.2019 (Rs. 3
lacs), 17.10.2019 (Rs. 3 lacs), 20.01.2020 (Rs.10,000),
11.11.2020 (Rs. 2 lacs) and on 24.04.2021 (Rs.50,000). At the
time of taking said loan the accused had executed receipts and
acknowledged the said loan amount. The accused had repaid total
Rs.2,59,500/- on different dates and an amount of Rs.6,00,500/-
remains to be paid to the complainant. That at the time of taking
loan of Rs. 3 lacs on 24.09.2019, the accused has issued cheque
bearing no. 053751 dt. 23.09.2020 for Rs. 3 lacs drawn on Axis
Bank Ltd. Yamuna Vihar Delhi and accused had also issued
another cheque bearing no. 053750 dt. 23.09.2020 of Rs.3 lacs in
favour of the accused but the both cheques were not presented by
the complainant for the encashment. That at the time of taking
loan on 11.11.2020, the accused in discharge of his liability
SANJANA
issued cheque bearing no. 000012 dt. 12.11.2021 for Rs.2 lacs
KASANA
drawn on HDFC Bank, Rohtak Road, National Highway 10,
District Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. That in discharge of his Digitally signed
by SANJANA
KASANA
Date: 2026.07.21
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 3 (Sanjana Kasana) 16:36:10 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
part liability, the accused had also issued cheque bearing no.
053748 dt. 12.11.2021 for Rs.1 lac drawn on Axis Bank Ltd.,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in favour of the complainant. Accused had
assured that aforesaid cheques would be honoured on its
presentation by his banker. That when complainant presented the
abovesaid cheques in question for encashment, same were
returned unpaid with remarks “funds insufficient” on cheque no.
000012 and “Drawer Signature Differs” on cheque no. 053748
vide returning memo dt. 20.11.2021. That when accused did not
pay the said amount after repeated requests, complainant issued a
legal demand notice dated 10.12.2021 calling upon the accused
to pay the amount of the aforesaid cheques within the stipulated
period but the accused did not make the payment within the
statutory period, hence the present complaint.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
3. The complainant tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit and relied upon following evidences:-
a) Evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A
b) Copies of acknowledgment receipts Ex.CW1/1(colly)
c) Copy of Bank Statement Ex. CW1/2
d) Cheque no. 000012 dt. 12.11.2021 Ex. CW1/3
e) Cheque no. 053748 dt. 12.11.2021 Ex. CW1/4
f) Cheque return memos dt. 20.11.2021 Ex. CW1/5 &
Ex. CW1/6 SANJANA
g) Legal notice dt. 10.12.2021 Ex. CW1/7 KASANA
h) Postal receipt dt. 10.12.2021 Ex. CW1/8
Digitally signed
by SANJANA
KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 4 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
16:36:21 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
i) Internet tracking report Ex. CW1/9
j) Copy of cheque no. 053750 Ex. CW1/11
k) Copy of cheque no.053751 Ex. CW1/12
l) Reply of legal notice Ex. CW1/13
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence,
accused was summoned for an offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act and notice under Section 251, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) was served
upon accused on 15.07.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The accused took the defence that he know the
complainant through one of his acquaintance. He had taken the
loan of Rs. 8 lacs in part payment (Rs. 3 lacs twice through
complainant and Rs. 2 lacs once through complainant’s husband
account, Ram Prakash Saxena). He had repaid Rs. 3,93,500/- to
the complainant, some through cash and some through
NEFT/RTGS. The cheque bearing no. 000012 was given by him
for the payment of loan amount. The cheque bearing no. 053748
got misplaced and the complaint regarding the same has been
made in his bank to stop payment. He does not know how the
cheque no. 053748 reached the complainant. Complainant has
misused his cheques. He want to settle the matter. He does not
owe the liability towards the complainant qua cheque in question.
Accused further admitted his signature on cheque no. 000012 and
the other detains of the cheque being filled by him. However, he
denied his signature on another cheque no. 053748 and the other
details of the said cheque being filled by him.
SANJANA
KASANA
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 5 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD 16:36:32 +0530
5. Thereafter, on oral request accused was granted
opportunity to cross examine the complainant as well as his
witnesses, if any, under Section 145 (2) of NI Act vide order
dated 15.07.2022.
6. The complainant has only examined himself as
CW1. In the post summoning evidence, the complainant (CW1)
has adopted his pre-summoning evidence. The
complainant/CW1was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
accused. CE was closed vide order dated 29.08.2024.
7. Accused was, thereafter, examined U/s 281 r/w Sec
313 Criminal Procedure code, 1872 on 29.08.2024 wherein entire
incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused took defence
that he had only given one signed cheque of Rs.2 lacs. Accused
had denied particulars of the said cheque being filled by him and
also denied his signature on other cheque. Further, he had stated
that he had already returned all the money and had no liability
towards the complainant.
8. Accused has examined himself as DW1 U/s. 315
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dt. 03.11.2025 and
the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties
and perused the entire evidence led by the parties and the
SANJANA
material available on record. KASANA
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
Date: 2026.07.21
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 6 (Sanjana Kasana) 16:36:45 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. During the course of final arguments, complainant
argued that the accused had taken online friendly loan for Rs.
8,60,000/- and out of the said amount had returned only a sum of
Rs. 2,59,000/- to the complainant. He had further argued that
since accused had admitted his liability in his reply to legal
demand notice, he shall be held liable for offence u/s 138NI Act.
Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that all the
requirements of section 138 NI act have been fulfilled by the
complainant in the present case and he has proved his case
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, all the ingredients of section 138
of NI act have been duly satisfied and presumption under section
139 of NI act is drawn in favour of the complainant. It is further
argued that complainant and accused had friendly relations. He
further argued that no complaint was filed by accused regarding
misuse/loss of cheque in question. It was also argued that the
accused has failed to raise any probable defence thereby
rebutting the presumption under section 139 NI act. The counsel
for the complainant concluded by stating that the accused should
be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 NI act.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued
that the offence is not made out as the accused has no liability to
pay the cheque amount as the accused has already returned the
pending amount. Further, Accused has also denied his signatures
SANJANA
and filling of other particulars of the cheque no 053748. It has KASANA
been submitted that the accused did not owe any liability towards Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 7 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD 16:37:00 +0530
the complainant and he has been successful in rebutting the
presumption under section 139 NI Act and has raised a probable
defence in his favour. Therefore, the accused is not guilty for the
offence punishable under section 138 NI act.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be
met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential
ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals
the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a
person on an account maintained by him for
payment of money and the same is presented for
payment within a period of 3 months from the date
on which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the
drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable
debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned
unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of
funds in the account to honour the cheque or that
it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from
that account on an agreement made with that
bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount
has been made by the payee or holder in due
course of the cheque by a notice in writing given
to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of
information of the dishonour of cheque from the
bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make
payment of the said amount of money within
fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients SANJANA
KASANA
are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 8 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
16:37:10 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the
NI Act
13. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are
proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the
conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be
fulfilled.
PROVING OF INGREDIENTS
14. Notably, there is no dispute qua the proof of first,
third and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the
original cheques vide Ex.CW1/3 & CW1/4 which the accused
has not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It
was not disputed that the cheque in question were presented
within its validity period. The cheque in question were returned
unpaid vide return memos Ex. CW1/5 & Ex. CW1/6 which has
also not been disputed. With regard to the proving of fourth
ingredient i.e. the service of legal demand notice, the accused has
accepted the receipt of the same. Moreover, in view of the
presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Ex. CW1/7
to CW1/9 (legal notice, postal receipt and tracking report)
alongwith the ratio laid down in the case of “C. C. Alavi Haji Vs.
Palapetty Mohd. & Anr 2007 AIR SCW 3578, I am of the
considered opinion that the fourth ingredient of the offence
stands proved. The fifth ingredient as such the same is deemed to
be proved that no payment has been made after issuance of legal SANJANA
demand notice. KASANA
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 9 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
16:37:18 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
RAISING OF PRESUMPTION
15. The accused has admitted the signatures on the
cheque bearing no 000012 in his notice u/s 251 r/w 294 CrPC
and statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. However, he denied his signatures
on cheque bearing no 053748 in his notice u/s 251 r/w 294 CrPC
and statement u/s 313 Cr.PC.
16. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused
admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumptions
are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the
NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another
presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act laying down
the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the
discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
17. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and
given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability.
Both the sections use the expression “shall”, which makes it
imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the
foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hiten
P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16, Kumar
Exports vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 and Bir Singh
vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197.
SANJANA
KASANA
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 10 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD 16:37:27 +0530
18. Therefore, in the instant case, since the accused has
admitted his signatures on the cheque bearing no. 000012 Ex.
CW1/3, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be
raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the
impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by
the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt. However, so
far as cheque bearing no. 053748 Ex. CW1/4, is considered, the
abovesaid statutory presumption would not be raised in favor of
complainant as the accused has denied his signatures on the said
cheque. Therefore, the burden still lies upon complainant to
prove his case as far as cheque bearing no. 053748 Ex. CW1/4,
is considered.
19. In the instant case, the complainant seeks to enforce
liability upon the accused on the ground of having granted a
friendly loan of Rs. 8,60,000/-, the cheques in question being
issued by the accused in discharge of the part liability in favour
of the complainant. However, a presumption as envisaged u/s 118
and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted in
favour of the Complainant as the accused has denied his
signatures on one of the cheque in question ie. Ex.CW1/4
20. In the present case, the accused has admitted that the
cheque in question belongs to him, but denied his signatures on
cheque no. 053748 Ex. CW1/4, However, other than bare denial,
accused has not led any oral or documentary evidence in support
of that. It is a well settled law that mere denial of signature on the SANJANA
KASANA
cheque without having any material in support of denial, has no
Digitally signed
by SANJANA
KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 11 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD 16:37:37 +0530
value in the eyes of law. If, accused really denied signature on the
cheque in question, then what prevented the accused to send the
cheque to seek expert’s opinion. In the present case, accused did
not lead any evidence to prove his innocence with respect to
cheque bearing no. 053748. Also, in the instant case, none of the
parties has pushed for sending the sample signatures of the
accused to FSL and they have not placed any document to verify
signatures of the accused. Though this court is no expert,
however, on perusing the admitted signatures of the accused on
cheque bearing no. 000012 which is Ex.CW1/3 with the disputed
signatures on other cheque bearing no. 053748 Ex. CW1/4, this
court is of the considered view that the disputed signature do not
match with admitted signature. Further, accused has stated in his
notice u/s 251 CR.PC that the cheque bearing no. 053748 got
misplaced and the complaint regarding the same has been made
his bank to stop payment.
21. Therefore, thus the allegations in the complaint
appear to be bald and vague assertions unsubstantiated by cogent
evidence in support as far as cheque no. 053748 Ex. CW1/4, is
considered.
22. As far as cheque no 000012 which is Ex.CW1/3 is
considered, accused admitted his signatures on the said cheque in
question.
SANJANA
KASANA
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
Date: 2026.07.21
16:37:48 +0530
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 12 (Sanjana Kasana)
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE QUA SECOND
INGREDIENT (EXISTENCE OF LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE DEBT/LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO
CHEQUE NO. 000012 EX. CW1/3)
23. The presumptions contemplated in the NI Act are
rebuttable presumptions and once the same are raised, it is for the
accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence.
The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of
proof were recently summarized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
“25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted
Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption
that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt
or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a
rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the
accused to raise probable defence. The standard
of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the
accused to rely on evidence led by him or the
accused can also rely on the materials submitted
by the complainant in order to raise a probable
defence. Inference of preponderance of
probabilities can be drawn not only from the
materials brought on record by the parties but
also by reference to the circumstances upon
which they rely.”
24. In the instant case for cheque 000012 Ex.CW1/3, the
complainant seeks to enforce liability upon the accused on the
ground of having granted a friendly loan of Rs.8.60 lacs, the
SANJANA
cheque in question no 000012 Ex.CW1/3. being issued by the
KASANA
accused in discharge of the part liability in favour of the
Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 13 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
16:37:59 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
complainant. Since a presumption as envisaged u/s 118 and 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted in favour of the
Complainant as such, it is now incumbent upon the accused to
rebut the said presumption on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities.
25. In order to rebut the same, the accused has stated in
his notice u/s 251 CrPc that the he had taken loan of Rs.
8,00,000/- in part payments from complainant. He has further
stated that he had repaid Rs. 3,93,500/- to the complainant
through cash and NEFT/RTGS. He has admitted that the cheque
bearing no. 000012 was given by him for payment of loan
amount. Further, he has admitted in his statement u/s 313 crpc
that he had given only one cheque of Rs. 2 lacs and he had
returned all the money. But in his examination in chief as DW1,
accused has stated that he had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- and he
had repaid Rs. 3,17,000/- through online mode and Rs. 2,80,000/-
in cash. And that he had issued cheque of Rs. 2 lacs as security at
the time of taking loan. Also, the accused as DW1 in his cross
examination has stated that he has admitted in his reply to legal
demand notice (Ex. CW1/3) that he had to return the amount of
Rs. 4,74,000/- to complainant. However, in order to prove the
cash payments, the accused has failed to bring any documentary
or oral evidence buttressing his version. He also failed to bring
forward any witness to support his version. Further, there are
material contradictions in the version taken by the accused so far
as the loan amount and payments are considered. More so, the SANJANA
KASANA
accused has admitted the loan amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- in his
Digitally signed
by SANJANA
KASANA
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 14 (Sanjana Kasana) Date: 2026.07.21
16:38:10 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
notice u/s 251 Crpc and in his reply to legal demand notice which
is Ex. CW1/3. The accused has also cross examined the
complainant as CW1 to the effect wherein the witness has
remained reliable and trustworthy.
26. Accused has stated in his notice u/s 251 CrPc that
the cheque bearing no.000012 bears his signature and other
details were also written by him. But in his statement u/s 313
CrPc, accused has denied writing other particulars except his
signatures. He has further stated in his examination as DW1 that
the cheque in question was issued as a signed security cheque to
complainant. The accused has not taken definite stand and his
version suffers from various inconsistencies.
27. Further, the accused has failed to place on record on
any complaint etc. qua the unlawful detention of the cheque in
question by the complainant. Mere oral averment is not going to
dispense with the requirement of cogent evidence. Furthermore,
it is to observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs.
Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, has held that “If a signed
blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some
payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars.
This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would
still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in
discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.”
28. Further, a cheque issued as a security in pursuit ofSANJANA
financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of KASANA
paper. It is given to ensure the fulfillment of an obligation Digitally signed by
SANJANA KASANA
Date: 2026.07.21
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 15 (Sanjana Kasana) 16:38:22 +0530
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
undertaken. If a cheque issued to secure repayment of a loan
advanced or payment of a liability and if the same is not repaid
on or before the due date, the drawee would be entitled to get the
cheque for payment, and if such a cheque is disordered, the
consequences contemplated under section 138 NI act would
follow. Reliance is placed upon Sripati Singh v. State of
Jharkhand,2021 SCCOnline1002. Further as to the plea of
cheque being a security cheque, it was held in ICDS v. Beena
Shabir & Anr. (2002)6 SCC 426, that security cheque would also
fall within the purview of section 138 NI Act and a person cannot
escape is liability unless he proves that the debt or liability for
which cheque was issued as security is satisfied otherwise.
Therefore, the present defence of the accused is also misplaced.
29. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the accused
has failed to rebut the presumption of law raised against him so
far as cheque bearing no. 000012 is considered by leading any
cogent evidence or puncturing holes in the version of the
complainant and thus, it can be said that the cheque in question
was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally recoverable
debt/liability owed by the accused towards the complainant thus,
the second ingredient to the offence under Section 138 of NI Act
stands proved. However, for another cheque bearing no. 053748,
this Court holds that the complainant has failed to prove all the
ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under section 138
of NI Act. The accused has succeeded to prove that the cheque SANJANA
was not given to the complainant in discharge of any existing KASANA
legal debt or liability. Digitally signed
by SANJANA
KASANA
Date: 2026.07.21
16:38:33 +0530
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 16 (Sanjana Kasana)
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
CONCLUSION:
30. To recapitulate the above discussion, the
complainant has failed to establish his case for cheque bearing
no. 053748 beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of
presumptions of law raised in his favor under section 118 and
139 of the NI Act or by any other evidence. In the result of the
analysis of the present case, accused Hemant Sharma stands
acquitted qua cheque bearing no. 053748 of the offence
punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. But the complainant has been successful in establishing his
case for cheque bearing no. 000012 beyond reasonable doubt
with the aid of presumptions of law raised in his favor under
section 118 and 139 of the NI Act or by any other evidence. In
the result of the analysis of the present case, the accused
Hemant Sharma stands convicted qua cheque bearing no.
000012 of the offence punishable under Section 138,
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
31. This judgment contains 17 pages. This judgment has
been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
Copy be given dasti. Accused has right to free legal aid by
approaching the authority mentioned on the coversheet of the
Digitally signed
judgment. SANJANA by SANJANA
KASANA
KASANA Date: 2026.07.21
16:38:44 +0530
Announced in the open Court (SANJANA KASANA)
on 21.07.2026 JMFC(NI ACT)
North East, Kkd Courts,
Delhi
CC NO. 201/2022 Page 17 (Sanjana Kasana)
Manju Saxena vs Hemant Sharma JMFC(NIAct)/NE/KKD
